The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 07:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musician whose sole accomplishment seems to be getting a cease and desist from record labels for releasing a mashup album Sgt. Petsound's Lonely Hearts Club Band on his blog. No record contract, no chart positions, no external references except those that refer to the album takedown notice. Fails WP:MUSIC; may be worthy of a redirect to Sgt. Petsound's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Demiurge 11:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominating ColoringBook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), another non-notable album by the same artist. Demiurge 11:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC as far as I can tell. MER-C 12:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clayton Counts has been featured in Rolling Stone, American Songwriter Magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Reader, Lumpen Times, E! Entertainment Online, the Boston Herald, Entertainment Weekly, and USA Today, in addition to more than 20,000 references online for "The Beachles." By stating that his "sole accomplishment" is receiving a cease and desist, you are completely ignoring the accomplishment that got him the cease and desist in the first place, which as I just mentioned appeared in many magazines and newspapers, some as recently as December of 2006. I will do what I can to expand the article, but it should be noted that this article was first nominated for deletion by Kurt Benbenek, who is an opponent of Counts', and who has posted here under many assumed names. He nominated this article for deletion as April Winchell, another DJ who Mr. Benbenek has attacked in the past. Benbenek has attacked many Wikipedia articles as the result of having his own article deleted. He has spent years impersonating music personalities and music historians like Otis Fodder and Irwin Chusid, and even Mr. Counts. If this article is non-notable, then djBC's article is, as well. It contains about as much biographical information, BC's claim to fame is also a Beatles mash-up record, and there are fewer sources and citations, as well. Notwithstanding that, I should say that I believe that neither djBC's article nor Counts' merit deletion. Both have been covered in the mainstream press, and both are likely to continue making records in the future. It should also be noted that Demiurge did not follow the appropriate procedure for deletion, and redirected Counts' article to the "Sgt. Petsound's" page after only a single day. This should serve as some indication of how antsy he is to see Mr. Counts' article disappear. Lots of artists listed in Wikipedia are less notable than Clayton Counts. TrevorPearce 03:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When TrevorPearce refers to the "original nomination for deletion", he's referring to this edit [1] by April Winchell, which I reverted because it was not a prod, speedy, or AFD tag, but vandalism. RedRollerskate 03:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, you are incorrect about the external references. First of all, there are no citations yet on the page, but the ones on the "Sgt. Petsound's" page clearly show that the artist was mentioned in the press well before the take-down notice. You are cherry-picking to suit your argument, and I can only assume that you're not a fan, but the only reason this mash-up received a cease and desist in the first place is because it had been mentioned in many mainstream news outlets. The fact that he's released only one notable record should not be a factor in deciding whether this article is notable. I will make revisions to the article, add citations. And contrary to Demiurge's claims, according to a November 2006 interview with Mr. Counts, he is signing to a label and starting one of his own. Your assessment that he is non-notable will only mean that someone will have to write a completely new article about him in the near future. TrevorPearce 03:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And here is what Wikipedia has to say about notability for musicians and performers:

- begin quote -

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

• It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.1
  • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries 2 except for the following:
    • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
    • Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.

An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) does not automatically meet the this criteria, but facts from such an article can be used to establish that any other criteria below have been met.

The above is the central criterion for inclusion.

- end quote -

Demiurge has taken criteria from the secondary list, even though Mr. Counts meets the primary criteria. If we were to go around Wikipedia proposing articles for deletion every time we didn't like somebody, I doubt there'd be any articles left. If you had proposed this article for deletion because it was insufficient in its citations, that would be one thing, but to say he's non-notable is another thing entirely. By the primary criteria, Counts is notable. Record contracts, chart positions, and the like are secondary. TrevorPearce 04:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Fails WP:MUSIC by any standard except press, which is a bad start. Of the articles cited, the Entertainment Weekly one is more or less trivial, the Herald one is about the cease-and-desist order, and the AP one is 404. That's not enough press coverage for him to be notable as a news story, and he's clearly not notable (yet) for music. Willing to change my mind if more and better press coverage is found. bikeable (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per new references. I would prefer a little more musical content to anyone who is kept as a musician, but there are enough references to merit a keep. The reviewers sure do hate that album, though. bikeable (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No offense, but how is the Entertainment Weekly piece trivial? It adequately describes the record, is a positive review, and it is not part of a more general article, i.e. it is written exclusively about the record and Mr. Counts. But to say that the article fails WP:MUSIC, except for press, is denying that press is the only criterion needed to sustain its notability. It says as much in the Wikipedia guidelines I cited. (quote) It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. (end quote) If he is "clearly not notable (yet)," when would he become "cleary notable"? That's about the most subjective call I ever heard. Being reviewed in magazines like Rolling Stone and American Songwriter alone makes him notable. The Herald article does cover the record, but even if it only mentioned the cease and desist (which it doesn't) it is a given that the cease and desist is the direct result of having released a noteworthy record. Otherwise, why cover the story at all? TrevorPearce 10:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I added some links to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the CBC, and Rolling Stone. Go ahead and delete or redirect it if this isn't enough. Someone is going to have to rewrite it and maintain it eventually, mark my words. Even if an article is "about the cease and desist order," it is pertinent. Articles about cease and desist orders are really about records that received cease and desist orders, and in this case also about a person who made such a record. Demiurge mentioned that there were "no external references except those that refer to the album takedown notice," but the Entertainment Weekly article was written prior to the cease and desist, as was the USA Today mention. The cease and desist and EMI's demand for Counts to hand over IP addresses only add to this article's notability. To suggest that they take away from it is ridiculous. TrevorPearce 10:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not a big fan of music articles about obscure bands, but this one has caused enough trouble to become noteworthy, or perhaps infamous, via media coverage. Either way this article should be kept because there are plenty of independent sources of info from reliable sources. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, how is press a "bad start"? According to Wikipedia, press is the ONLY criterion needed. That's why it's the "central criterion for inclusion." How is he non-notable, when the guidelines themselves read that an artist IS "notable if he meets any of the following criteria"? This article more than meets the criteria, and is therefor notable. It should be mentioned also that Demiurge is a contributor to the mash-up article, which leaves me with the impression that to him this is about more than whether or not Counts is notable. He proposed this deletion out of spite, which is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, then immediately redirected the article. From the Guide to Deletion: "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to 'hide' the old content from scrutiny by the community." I'm not sure if Demiurge was also responsible for removing the Beachles mention under "notable bootlegs" on the mash-up page, but it seems likely. TrevorPearce 13:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of TrevorPearce's comments. And in case anyone asks: I started the Sgt. Petsound's Lonely Hearts Club Band article but I do not know Clayton Counts or anyone else involved or related to him, his article or this discussion personally in any way. JohnRussell 15:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for changing your vote, Bikeable. I'm not sure that the Rolling Stone mention counts as a review (any more than the Entertainment Weekly article, which gave it a thumbs up), but plenty of people hated "Metal Machine Music," too, and the Beachles record does have an underground following. Personally, there are some mash-ups I like better, but this is definitely one of the more original I've seen. TrevorPearce 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple non-trivial references. —ShadowHalo 22:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, now shown to have met WP:MUSIC. MER-C 06:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why does the ColoringBook AFD discussion link point here, as I would think they are separate issues. Clayton Counts is notable for reasons mentioned above(somewhat), but I do not find ColoringBook notable in it's own right. Static Universe 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection to removal of ColoringBook. Its AFD debate is linked here because Demiurge wanted to kill two birds with one stone and didn't want to follow procedure. TrevorPearce 06:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.